No. 11/2/2013-IR (Pt.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi,
Dated thee. th August, 2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005.
The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed)
has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the
Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those
complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of
section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2.
The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited
the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC
and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:-
"The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter
between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by
the service rules which fall under the apression 'persona? information', the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On
the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of that individual."
The Supreme Court further held that such information
could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
3.
This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
End: As above.
)
40;frn
(Maltoj Joshi)
Joint Secretary (AT&A)
Tel: 23093668
i . All the Ministries / Departments of the Government of India.
2.
Union Public Service Commission /Lok Sabha Secretariat/ Rajya Sabha
Secretariat/ Cabinet Secretariat/ Central Vigilance Commission/ President's
Secretariat/ Vice-President's Secretariat/ Prime Minister's Office/ Planning
Commission/Election Commission.
3.
Central Information Commission/ State Information Commissions.
4.
Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
5.
O/o the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
6.
All officers/Desks/Sections, DOP&T and Department of Pension & Pensioners
Welfare.
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing
26/06/2013
Date of decision
Name of the Appellant
Name of the Public Authority
26/06/2013
Sh. Mario] Arya,
(RTI Activists and Social Worker) 67, Sec-
12, CPWD Flats, R K Puram, New Delhi
-110022
Central Public Information Officer,
Cabinet Secretariat,
(Vigilance & Complaint Cell), 2nd Floor,
Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi -110001
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri M.P. Sajeevan, DS & CPIO was
present.
The third party, Shri S B Agnihotri, DG (DEF. ACQ) MoD was present.
Chief Information Commissioner
Shri Satyananda Mishra
2.
We heard the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in
the
case.
3.
In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought the copies of the
complaints made against the third party in the case and the details of the action
taken including the copies of the enquiry reports. He had also wanted the
copies of the correspondence made between the Cabinet Secretariat and the
Ministry of Shipping in respect of the third party in the case. The CPIO after
consulting the third party under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, had
CIC/SM/A/2013/000058
refused to disclose any such information by claiming that it was personal in
nature arid thus exempted under the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this decision of the CP10, the Appellant
had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal in
a speaking order in which he had endorsed the decision of
the.
CPIC.:
4.
We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and
the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions
of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information
sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an office
of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on
those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this
entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the -
meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (i) (1) of the RTI Act. 'In this connection, it
is very pertinent to bite the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C)
No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs GIG and others) in which it has held
that the performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a
matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects
are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal
information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The Supreme Court
further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a
larger public interest3The information sought by the Appellant in this case is
about some complaints made against a government official and any possible
action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. It is, thus, clearly
the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order.
Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the
provisions of the RTI Act which both the CP10 and the Appellate Authority have
CIC/SM/N201 3/000058
rightly cited in their respective orders.
5.
We find no grounds to interfere in the order of the Appellate Authority.
The appeal is rejected.
Copkis of
ordaT be c,
?iveri fR.--;€7 ot cos'
arties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CP10 of this
Commission.
(Vijay Sheila)
Deputy Registrar
OICISMIAl2613/003058
